weight

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the tool retrieves records but does not confirm whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, how pagination or limits work, or what happens if no data exists in the range. The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic purpose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (one sentence fragment), which is concise but at the cost of important details. It lacks any structure such as use cases, parameter hints, or behavioral notes. While brevity is valued, the description would benefit from one or two more sentences to add context without becoming lengthy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The context signals indicate a high-complexity environment with 56 sibling tools, and the tool has no required parameters and no schema description coverage. Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse to help an agent select and invoke this tool correctly among many similar ones. More information about date format, data granularity, and result structure is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are 2 parameters (start, end), and the schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameter semantics. However, the tool's purpose (weight records by date range) strongly implies that start and end define the date range, so a baseline of 3 is reasonable given the clear context from the description and sibling tool patterns.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is in Chinese and states the tool provides weight records within a specified date range, using a clear verb-resource pairing. It is specific about the resource (weight records) and the temporal scope (date range), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other health metrics like sleep, stress, or heart rate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (for retrieving weight data over a date range) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling health tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the user must have a device that tracks weight or if the tool only works for certain date formats.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.